bantling-a proposition of his (Mr. BELL'S.) He, however, had not risen to take charge of it-for he knew that it was, at present, in much better hands than it was originally; and he was sure that the gentleman would secure for it many other votes. He had risen to reply to some of the remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. CHAMBERS). That gentleman had refered to the qualification of voters in other States in order to show that in most of then more than six months' residence is required, and taxation. And, he had argued, that the only reason why a residence was demanded, was, that it was an evidence of a man's intention to become a citizen of this State. Now, he (Mr. B.) would ask, if it was at all probable that any one would come from another State, leave his home and his fireside, merely for the purpose of voting at our elections? And, not only that, but also to pay a tax? If these, then, were the only reasons which could be assigned for the necessity of making the term of residence of a voter so long, than there was an end of the matter. He would state, that when Pennsylvania amended her penal code in 1794, by making its provisions more wild and insecure, objections were urged against modifying, or diminishing the punishment in many violations of the law, on the ground that the punishment was equally as severe in a vast number of the States. Pennsylvania, and it did her high honor, took the lead in revising and moderating the severity of her criminal laws. He hoped, that with respect to her elective franchise, she would, instead of restricting, do every thing to extend that invaluable privilege to her citizens. He trusted that we should soon see the day, when every State in the Union would adopt the policy of admitting their fellow-citizens of their sister States to a full participation in the rights of citizenship upon very

short residence.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said he was opposed to the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment, because they retained the tax qualifi cation. He entertained the opinion that the time of residence contained no principle; and the requirement of a tax qualification in order to give the right to vote, was contrary to the spirit and genius of the Government. He trusted that the proposition would be voted down. He was indifferent as to the shape of the section so that the tax qualification was abolished. Identity of residence was all that was sought for by a majori ty; and he would be willing to require a residence of ten days' in the district, doing away with the tax qualification. That would be as great an extension of the right of suffrage as any one could desire. A year's residence had been objected to on the ground that it threw an impediment in the way of emigration to the State. He considered a year's residence in the State necessary. He thought a year's residence would be a sufficient time to enable a 'person to become acquainted with our policy. But six months' residence was too short a time to identify the interests of an individual with those of this Commonwealth, and to enable him to possess himself of that degree of local information, which was necessary to the intelligent discharge of the duties of a voter. The great inducement held out for emigration to the new States was, that there was no tax qualification, and more especially of a six months' residence. But, then, it was to be recollected that the new States were very differently situated from the old, in many respects, and that they were desirous of improving their territory and obtaining a population. Pennsylvania expected but little in

16.

this way, and he thought a year's residence necessary. He would vote against the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment.....

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, entertained similar views to the gentleman who had just taken his seat. He would embody them in a distinct proposition, if the proposition pending should be rejected, and would offer it for the consideration of the committee.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, said he did not believe that the people of Pennsylvania would approve of the principle of a six months' residence, although it might be proper in many respects.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, said that those who came from abroad to settle amongst us could not, and ought not, to expect to participate immediately in all the privileges granted to our citizens. We had the right to prescribe the mode and manner in which, and the time when, they should be admited to exercise the right of voting, or any thing else. He concured with the gentleman from Allegheny, that the people would not approve of restricting the term of residence to six months. He believed that twelve months' residence ought to be required.

M. DENNY, of Allegheny, observed, that as he had not said a word as yet on the subject, he would now make a few remarks. He did not regard the payment of a tax as a qualification. It was looked upon, however, in that light. He cared not, then, whether the provision should be retained, or not. The payment of a tax was to be regarded as the best evidence by which to judge of a man's being entitled to the privileges of a citizen. He was almost inclined to vote for dispensing with it. He did not believe that the people of the Commonwealth would sustain the proposition to shorten the term of residence to six months. For whose benefit was it? Was it for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth? No, it was not. There were now two hundred thousand voters in the State, and ever since the Constitution of '90 went into operation, two years residence and a State or county tax had been required. and they had been complied with cheerfully. Then, why should we reduce the term of residence to six months? The fact of the matter was, that this was a mere trap to catch a few transient emigrants-a bait to induce them to come here-where they would get a vote in six months. He thought, however, there were very few who would come here on that account. No, if we wished to encourage immigration into the State, it should be by wise and equal laws, such as he trusted we should always have. He was disposed to let the two hundred thousand voters enjoy their privilege, and not for giving to the new comer greater advantages than the old voters have had. He would give them all the rights and privileges which the people of the Commonwealth had heretofore enjoyed; but, he thought we ought not to break down this wholesome and salutary rule, and permit strangers, after residing in the State six months only, to a participation in the management of our Government. He had no objection to fix the term of residence at one year, which was a period long enough to enable men to obtain a knowledge of the laws and policy of the State, and the character of the candidates for public offices. He would vote a six months' residence.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, said the policy of the State of Pennsylvania had been, he believed, that of other States. He knew that in no

dence required. It was the interest of Pennsylvania to invite all persons to come within her borders, and make this State their home. Other States had found it to their benefit, and why should not we? He was surprised to hear any objection made to the amendment, by the gentleman from Union.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said, in voting on the amendment to the amendment, he should vote in accordance with his own opinion, and also of those who sent him here. He liked the proposition of the gentleman from Northampton better than that of the gentleman from the county. The people in his part of the county, so far as he had heard their opinions, thought the time of residence too long, as fixed by the present Constitution. In his part of the State, so far as he had heard any opinion expressed, one year was deemed sufficient. He never had heard six months named there. But he should vote against the amendment to the amendment, because it abridged the right of suffrage, which right his constituents thought should be extended. If the majority was determined to retain the tax qualification, he hoped it would be extended as far as possible; and, that it would also be provided, that every citizen who should reside ten days in a district, should have the right to vote there, even if he has not paid any tax. His object was to get rid of the tax qualification. It was not contended that the payment of a tax confered the right of voting, but that it furnished merely the evidence of residence. If, then, the Convention determined that the right of suffrage should be confined to taxpayers, they should make that basis as broad as possible. He would be glad if the amendment should be so modified as to provide that ten days' residence in the district should be deemed equivalent to paying a tax. If it had come down to a mere question of evidence, he hoped that other evidence of residence would be accepted than that of tax paying.

Mr. STERIGERE had never heard six months' residence advocated by the people of his district, as sufficient to entitle any one to vote. It did not suit them to receive, as voters, all the scum of the other States which might be spewed out upon them. He was opposed to the reduction of the residence to six months, because it operated unequally in the different districts. It might be an advantage to the city and county of Philadelphia, because it would give the voters there the assistance of all the convicts discharged from the Penitentiary, as soon as they were out-and all who might land on the wharves from New York, Boston, and other cities, to commit larcenies and other petty crimes. These, after a sentence of six or eight months, would be qualified voters. Under this provision, Philadelphia, and perhaps Pittsburg, would have the advantage over the county population, from the causes I have mentioned.

Mr. EARLE supported the proposition for six months. Reform was intended, he said, for those who suffered, not for those who did not suffer. If one man was unjustly deprived of his vote by the present system, the two hundred thousand voters were bound, as Christians, to restore it to him. It was said that some men would not, in six months, be sufficiently acquainted with our institutions to vote: but we could not put intelligence ⚫ into a man, unless nature and education had made him susceptible of it. Some may be well acquainted with our institutions and local concerns in six months; and some never while they live. You subject a person

him to vote. By this rule of one year's residence, you admit rogues and vagabonds, and exclude many honest men: for, suppose a man chooses to swear that he has been twelve months in the State, who is to disprove it.

Mr. CURLL had sat here, he said, for a week, listening to this debate, without making a single remark or motion; but he now felt called upon to say a few words. He represented the county of Armstrong almost alone, and as he was totally unadvised as to the opinions of his constituents on this question, never having heard it alluded to by them, his own opinion was in favor of changing the term of residence required from two years to one year, and of leaving the Constitution in other respects as it was, in regard to the right of suffrage. He confessed, however, that he was much disposed to remove the tax qualification. Regarding it as a relic of old mother Britain, he would be glad to eradicate it if he could. But, encumbered as the subject was with difficulties, he felt disposed to go for the proposition of the gentleman from Northampton, voting on his own responsibility, and leaving his ultimate decision to be guided by the opinions of his constituents. We have had speech after speech for the last week on this question, and often upon other topics little connected with it. The city and county of Philadelphia had filled a large space in the debates. In fact, it would appear that we had come here more for the purpose of legislating for the city and county of Philadelphia, than to make a Constitution for the State. It was impossible that the people should be satisfied with such conduct. During the last week, in which nothing had been done but to talk, we had put the State to an expense of more than ten thousand dollars.

Mr. M'CAHEN had attempted to give a vote against the tax qualification; but the previous question not being sustained, he would now vote for the proposition of his colleague, (Mr. BROWN) as being the most liberal one it seemed possible he could get. An opportunity had been offered to the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. DICKEY) to give his vote against a tax qualification, but he had declined. It appeared, therefore, that those who professed to be opposed to the tax, had not embraced this only chance which had been offered to them yet, to vote directly upon that question.

Mr. SERGEANT (President) remarked, that much time, it was true, had been spent upon this question, whether well or not, was another consideration. But, if we had all been able to come to some conclusion without debate, then the time would have been saved. If not, then it ought not to have been saved. All arguments and considerations, in regard to the cost of our proceedings, were out of the question, unless there was some other process of reaching out object than that of debate, deliberation, and a free interchange and careful comparison of views. It was true that we could reach a decision, and save much time, by drawing lots for the result of each question; but this would be rather a poor way for a grave body, assembled on so important an occasion, to proceed. Yesterday, we had a mass of conglomerated provisions before us, containing every thing, and therefore suiting every one in some respects, and no one in all respects, and we overthrew and demolished the whole fabric. Now, we had come back to the original question. It must be a subject of some importance, or gentlemen would not have been so earnestly engaged in its discussion, He had listened to the debate, and had found that those who participated in it were

the subject. Should we, then, undertake to force opinions on the subject, to press members to hasty and reluctant conclusions? The question is, "who shall vote?" This was a fundamental question; and, unless we agreed upon this, many difficulties would occur in making our Constitution.

Two modes of determining the question presented themselves. The first was to permit any body to vote. But, so far as he had heard, there was only one member who went as far as that. There was but that one, who said that every freeman, every man not a slave, ought to be entitled to vote. The other mode was to have some limit to the right of voting, and in this the great body of the committee concurred. The question is next, "what shall this limit be?" This was a question of importance, and one which ought to be considered in an abstract form. Should we proceed by qualification or disqualification? Should we say, who shall vote, or who shall not vote? For if we had a limitation to the right of suffrage, we must have a way for ascertaining that limit. He was satisfied that we must proceed by qualification. By declaring that this qualification should be residence and taxation, we excluded all vagrants, transient persons, convicts and paupers.

We exclude them by inserting a qualification. But suppose we say that all may vote, with the exception of paupers, vagrants, and convicts. That would be to establish disqualification, which would impose a difficult and unpleasant duty on the officers of the election, and produce much unnecessary difficulties. Which would be the most correct and the best mode of proceeding? Let us bring it to a practical test. Suppose me to be an inspector at an election, a man presents himself at the window, of whom I have some suspicion; can I say that he is a vagrant, or a convict, and ought to be taken up? Is not the inspector placed in a difficult and delicate situation? Can he say, are you not a pauper-a vagrant-a convict? How can the person answer? It would be a violation of a clause in the Bill of Rights, to require a man to convict himself. It imposes an arduous duty on inspectors. What would be the consequences of an attempt, by an officer of an election, to discharge such a duty; to ask people, as they come to the window, whether they were convicts, &c.? Quarrels and blows. Half of the fights that heretofore have taken place at elections, originated from disputes in relation to qualification. It was entirely out of the question to put it upon an inspector of an election, to ask a man, whether he is a pauper, or a vagrant, or a convict? But to ask a citizen whether he is a resident, and has paid a tax, is no offence; and yet, it was certain to exclude all disqualified persons. What have you done? You have established the right of voting; and, if any one claiming the right, can prove his title to it, he cannot be excluded from exercising it. But some men's votes, it is said, will be jeopardized by this method of proceeding. But he would ask gentlemen, what was the actual character of the votes excluded, under the tax and residence qualification? How did it happen that persons whose right was doubtful, were prevented at the polls? In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, they are dragged up by others. At every contested election, the opposite parties have their committees of vigilance, and their sub-committees, whose duty it is to see that as many votes as possible are received for their side. After the substantial harvest of voters, comer